Dude you are a real Biggot. I'm not down with gay lifestyle but that is some horrible shit to say.
Breaking: California supreme court: upholds Prop 8
- Thread starter xxxxxxxxxllllllllllllll
- Start date
Dude you are a real Biggot. I'm not down with gay lifestyle but that is some horrible shit to say.
And there you go.
They way it was put out that Black Californians voted for Prop 8 by almost 70%. The point was also made that the Anti Prop 8 people didn't really try hard to present their side, just assuminh it wouldn't pass. They were wrong.
There is no such thing as gay marriage. That's like saying there's a such thing as gay heterosexuality. Its an oxymoron in and of itself. The very definition of a marriage is that of a bond between a man and a woman, therefore that excludes same sex unions from being defined as a "marriage".
That said, I support same full rights of sex unions. Everybody has the right to be miserable.
I'm also glad to see this happen. Gays are not only trying to gain the right to union, they are trying to exude power and THAT, I have a problem with. When you start to redefine the constitution to fit "special interest groups" you have to tread very lightly and carefully. This whole movement is a power move and won't end with gay "marriage" - you can bet on that. I don't care what two people do with their own lives but this shit is far more political than some people see.
That said, I support same full rights of sex unions. Everybody has the right to be miserable.
I'm also glad to see this happen. Gays are not only trying to gain the right to union, they are trying to exude power and THAT, I have a problem with. When you start to redefine the constitution to fit "special interest groups" you have to tread very lightly and carefully. This whole movement is a power move and won't end with gay "marriage" - you can bet on that. I don't care what two people do with their own lives but this shit is far more political than some people see.
There is no such thing as gay marriage. That's like saying there's a such thing as gay heterosexuality. Its an oxymoron in and of itself. The very definition of a marriage is that of a bond between a man and a woman, therefore that excludes same sex unions from being defined as a "marriage".
That said, I support same full rights of sex unions. Everybody has the right to be miserable.
I'm also glad to see this happen. Gays are not only trying to gain the right to union, they are trying to exude power and THAT, I have a problem with. When you start to redefine the constitution to fit "special interest groups" you have to tread very lightly and carefully. This whole movement is a power move and won't end with gay "marriage" - you can bet on that.
Defined by who? Men? They also said Blacks were 3/4ths human at one time. That religion shit is for the birds. You know you were brainwashed by slave owners right? Who gives a fuck what some gay people do?
CHRISTIANS WERE THE GROUP THAT DIDN'T WANT GAY MARRIAGE. SO THERE IS NO NEED TO RACIALIZE IT.
THE BLACK CHRISTIANS WHO WERE AGAINST IT HAVE MORE IN COMMON WITH THE MEXICAN CATHOLICS AND WHITE CONSERVATIVES THAT DON'T WANT IT.
I'M BLACK AND NON CHRISTIAN I SUPPORTED THEIR RIGHT TO IT, SO THERE IS NO NEED TO SEE THIS IDEOLOGICAL ISSUE RACIALLY, UNLESS THAT IS THE WAY YOU CHOOSE TO SEE IT TO MALIGN BLACK PEOPLE.
All laws are defined by men. I'm well aware of the history of this country as well as my ancestors. Please point out where I said something about religion in my post?
So how about we "redefine heterosexuality" as gay homosexuality? See how stupid that concept is? The same can be said about "gay marriage".
Marriage is directly tied with Religion. You don't have to say it, the reason for the man and woman shit is based off Adam and Eve, which is bullshit to begin with. Why would it matter if they call it marriage or not. You're caught up on words.
I voted in favor of gay marriage because anything that pisses off republicans is fine by me.
That's the story they'll tell, ignoring the thousands of years where marriage was a man and as many women as he could afford.
I heard Warren Balentine put out a scenario where Republicans can use this as a wedge issue to regain seats in the House and Senate, where they go against gay marriage and civil unions but are for equal rights. I would be against that. So if a gay man/woman could get benefits that a straight man/woman couldn't get, wouldnt that be the "special rights" I keep hearing they want.
A VOTE AGAINST MEANS I SUPPORTED THE RIGHT FOR THEM TO MARRY.
My bad
And would you be suprised to learn that Coretta Scott King publicly stated that Dr. King would have been in favor of gay rights?
Last edited:
Eventually it will go through, their not finished yet.
Do u care to provide proof or are you blowing smoke out your ass?
Exactly, and its even worse to see black people doing this as well. How the fuck you gonna compare Behavior to race????.
The problem with gays and there agenda, is there Blatant Intellectual Dishonesty, suggesting that any and everybody who doesn't agree with them are Bigots, Homophobes, etc.
K
kwazdog
Guest
K
kwazdog
Guest
church....
edit: but it does have a impact on future generations...thats my main area of concern, the highly impressionable children.
Eventually it will go through, their not finished yet.
Oh no doubt about it, Gays have more money, power, and influence, than people realize, and certainly more than black people have ever had, which makes their Bitching and complaining even more pathetic.
This court ruling is only a minor setback for them.
Civil unions give them equal rights. There is no such thing as "Gay-Marriage". Marriage is a man and woman or man and multiple women. It is never and has never been two people of the same sex. They should fight for equal property and medical rights under civil unions. This would give them equal rights if thats all they want. Marriage is tied to religious and cultural customs. Nowhere is a same sex couple recognized as being married.They want to have it called marriage instead of accepting civil unions so they can legitimize it and make it seem normal. They are trying to force a change in culture and religion. If all they want is rights they should be happy with civil unions.
Yes, yes and yes.
Moreover, many of these anger and highly motivated homosexuals are not fighting for equal rights and/or greater inclusion. They are fighting for the sake of fighting. They don't like the system and so they are fighting against it in any matter they can come up with.
They hate the traditional family dynamic whether it's based on 4,000 years chinese history or 2,000 years of native american history or even centuries of paganisn. They hate any family structure the includes a man and a woman.
Last edited:
Where there's smoke there's fire - Burn baby burn. Not to mention that the King Center list homophobia as one of the "Triple Evils" that have to be opposed. Do you really think King could hold hate in his heart? One of his earliest advisors, Bayard Rustin was openly gay. And the black church demands that he leave him.
These guys are trying to force gay marriage down the throat of a population which categorically rejected this type of marriage through the ballot.
Gay rights and "Gay-Marriage" is not the same. They can get all the rights they want from civil unions. Dr King may not have been against homosexuals but I doubt he would support calling a same sex relationship marriage. I support Gay rights but like someone said earlier. "Gay marriage" is an oxymoron. What makes it a marriage is it being a man and woman making a commitment, religious reasons or not.
No, they are not. They are simply trying to be happy. Why would you want to deny that? The world is ugly enough as it is, let gay folks be.
The "parade gays" are a tiny number of the overall gay population. These folks just want to be with the one they love, in a legal and recognized way, but not in a separate but equal way. Two women, or men, that have been in love and in a monogomous relationship for the last 30 years just want to be married in their faith, or for their own happiness.
That type of thing affects you in ZERO negative ways. Let it be. And post boobs instead.
no they aren't just trying to be happy. they are trying to be legitimized in the eyes of society at large. they don't need "Marriage" to be happy. happiness is a choice.
and they can have that with a civil union. hell, they can have all the rights of marriage with power of attorney.
regardless of how small the gay pride group is, gays et al are still defined by them. kill that noise and much of the protests against them will leave as well.
maybe it DOES affect others in a negative way.
see, this is the thing that gets me. gay folks want people to respect their "rights", not realizing they may be infringing on other people's rights as well.
that gay pride shit traumatized me the first time i saw it. it was just too weird. i would hate to have to explain that shit to my kids.
sometimes gay folks are too radical for their own good.
marriage does not have one definition. and the US constitution does not say anything about marriage being defined as only "one man, one woman." it purposely left out so that states can figure that shit out on their own.
now a very basic run down of why this didnt get overturned:
firstly, its not because of the parades
the problem is that the california constitution stipulates that the citizens have the right to create laws and amend the constitution themselves. so overruling Prop. 8 would be unconstitutional because it violates the rights of the citizens to amend the constituion.
BUT, the gays who already got married before prop. 8 are still gonna be recognized by the state as being married
NOW, this opens the doors for other questions. like, can a majority group get together and amend the constitution to deny rights to a minority group? etc...
now a very basic run down of why this didnt get overturned:
firstly, its not because of the parades
the problem is that the california constitution stipulates that the citizens have the right to create laws and amend the constitution themselves. so overruling Prop. 8 would be unconstitutional because it violates the rights of the citizens to amend the constituion.
BUT, the gays who already got married before prop. 8 are still gonna be recognized by the state as being married
NOW, this opens the doors for other questions. like, can a majority group get together and amend the constitution to deny rights to a minority group? etc...
Last edited:
i agree 100%. Coming from black people it is a damn shame
That was part of what I was talking about in my post. They aren't just seeking rights, they are seeking power. They want the ability to bully people into whatever they want...like the Jews.
Yeah, I said it. Its the exact same pattern - you don't agree - you're anti-semetic. You don't agree - you're a homophobe (which is such a bullshit term since most people don't have a fear of homosexuals)